Speaking of American Sharia, why does Barack Obama have it in for Muslim women?
You haven’t told your parents, but you don’t want to be a Muslim anymore. You hate wearing the hijab and would tear the damn thing up — but you’re afraid of another beating. You don’t discuss Islam with your father — the beating put a stop to that, too. Your friend Susan doesn’t know about the beating, but she says it’s wrong to make you wear the hijab. “This is America. You have rights. Women are equal here.”
True, you think, and we’ve got a new president, Barack Obama. He’s not right-wing, like George Bush. He’s a Democrat who believes in equal rights. He’s black, an outsider, so he’ll know how you feel. And some of his family are Muslim. He says he wants to reach out to Muslims. He’ll speak for you. Then you hear his Cairo speech:
It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism.
You laugh. Not the carefree laugh of your childhood, but a hollow, bitter laugh.
He panders to Islamist sensibilities at the cost of the rights of half the population of “the Muslim world.”
I can’t figure out if this is an example of genuine ignorance or religious hatred or just Obama hatred. I’m guessing it is the first, so let me explain: Religions have the right to dictate, yes, “dictate”, what someone can wear, as well as sorts of other silly things. People in free countries needn’t follow such dictates, and those freedoms must be protected. But when a person exercises that freedom, they risk being in disagreement with various religious authorities. Big deal – schisms are nothing new. Obama was taking a stance completely compatible with libertarianism and with all those who value religious freedom.
Here’s an example from my teenage years: At my sister’s Bat Mitzvah, I was invited to read from the Torah (which is an honor). I said I wouldn’t cover my head. Our rabbi shrugged and said “you have to figure out what’s important for yourself.” My orthodox relatives from another synagogue were in the audience, saw what I did, and complained to me about it. I vigorously defended my choice. They’ve never forgiven me. They can dictate all they want & I can ignore them. It is not the business of the government.
Obama’s remarks were directed at the governments of countries like France and Turkey which forbid girls in public schools from wearing what their religion dictates. I’m surprised a libertarian would object.
At my sister’s Bat Mitzvah, I was invited to read from the Torah (which is an honor). I said I wouldn’t cover my head. Our rabbi shrugged and said “you have to figure out what’s important for yourself.” My orthodox relatives from another synagogue were in the audience, saw what I did, and complained to me about it. I vigorously defended my choice. They’ve never forgiven me. They can dictate all they want & I can ignore them. It is not the business of the government.
Suppose they had not merely dictated, but sent someone to have you beaten for it, or worse? I know that that’s not a problem with Judaism, but…?
Obama’s remarks were directed at the governments of countries like France and Turkey which forbid girls in public schools from wearing what their religion dictates. I’m surprised a libertarian would object.
A libertarian objects to public schools. This is one of the reasons why.
And there is nothing in the Koran that requires the wearing of the hijab, and there are sound societal reasons to not hide women’s identities in public. If Muslim extremists don’t like the laws, they are free to go back to their country of origin, or send their girls to be abused in private schools. I haven’t seen much of that.
Immigration, multi-culturalism, democracy. Pick any two.
Just to clarify: if you want to talk about child abuse, or abuse against women, or abuse in general, that’s great. But I think mixing up those important issues with religious freedom is a bad tactic for a liberty-loving person.
“Sound societal reasons”, and “don’t like the laws” sound like things a fascist would say (not that there is anything wrong with that). “free to go back to their own country” sounds like something an intolerant bigot would say, and there is something wrong with that.
But I think mixing up those important issues with religious freedom is a bad tactic for a liberty-loving person.
I wasn’t. It’s the Muslims who do that.
“free to go back to their own country” sounds like something an intolerant bigot would say, and there is something wrong with that.
When it comes to men serially abusing women because they don’t want to knuckle under to their misogynistic religion, put me in the “intolerant bigot” category. I see nothing fascist about it at all. If we tolerate absolutely everything, including religious violence and intolerance, we will lose all of the values that made us tolerant.
Do you realize what a foolish thing you’re saying?
You need to read this piece:
“Who will win the war for the soul of Western Europe? The Islamofascists and their multiculturalist appeasers, many of whom seem to believe that their job is not to defend democracy but to help make the transition to sharia as smooth as possible? The nativist cryptofascists? Or Pim Fortuyn’s freedom-loving heirs?”
I don’t mean to strain your hospitality by calling you a bigot. I just think you sound like one sometimes. Abuse and religion are separate – you can convey religious dictates to your children (and peers) without being abusive, as my story indicated. Another rabbi would have told me I couldn’t read from the Torah until I covered my head, and would have asked my parents to escort me from the building if I put up a fuss. There are many ways to be Jewish, many ways to be Christian, Muslim, etc — some ways are very misogynistic, some slightly misogynistic, some not at all. Non-abusive misogyny (like not letting women become priests) is none of the government’s business. Abuse is always the government’s business (I’m a statist), but I see no reason to link the prevention of abuse to religious practice. So-called “hate crimes” seem atrocious to me for the same reason — hate (and thought!) is legal, crime isn’t, lets not mix up the two. I bet you agree with me about “hate crimes”!
Regarding fascism, as defined using the definition that you and Jonah Goldberg prefer: why shouldn’t people be free to cover their faces?
As an aside: I bet whatever reason you give, technology can provide a solution which reveals someone’s identity despite the cover, and when religion catches up to technology, there might be a technological arms race. As long as actual criminality isn’t the result, such a technological arms race would be funny. But if criminality is involved, suppression of criminality should use the least liberty-limiting method possible, as I’m sure you would agree.
Abuse and religion are separate – you can convey religious dictates to your children (and peers) without being abusive, as my story indicated.
With Islam, they are often one and the same (going all the way back to Mohammed marrying a six-year-old girl).
…why shouldn’t people be free to cover their faces?
You (and the president) continue to ignore Mary Jackson’s (and my) point, which is about people being free to not cover their faces.
Read Obama’s statement again. He said that Muslim citizens should be free to practice their religion — that it is their individual choice. And that Muslim women should not be forced by non-Muslims to not wear a headscarf. Everything he said is about respecting the rights of Muslim women to make their own choices. And this somehow means he has it in for Muslim women!?!
That assumes that it is indeed a free choice for them. In many cases, it is not, and is instead a way for the Islamic patriarchy to keep the women in their place — a fact that the president (and you) ignore.
I haven’t ignored you at all. Yes, unsurprisingly, all four of us are against child abuse, and are for religious freedom. I’m supporting the president’s call to be impartial about religious freedom. I see no indication that the president supports child abuse or misogyny. Most people, even most Republicans, would laugh at the thought, as would Obama’s Secretary of State, who made the kind of speech in China that apparently Mary Jackson wanted Obama to make in Cairo. It is true that Obama didn’t make a Hillary Clinton-in-China speech in Cairo – Obama promoted freedom from government oppression instead, which I find to be an acceptable and appropriate alternative subject in a speech that had to cover a lot of ground, including the whole peace-in-the-middle-east distraction.
If you think that religious oppression against Muslims in Europe is such a big problem that the president has to pander to them about it, you both live in an alternate reality.
> if you want to talk about child abuse, or abuse against women, or abuse in general,
> that’s great. But I think mixing up those important issues with religious freedom is a
> bad tactic for a liberty-loving person.
How do you “unmix” them when
“The prophet, peace be upon him, married Aisha when
she was six and consummated the marriage when she
was nine.”
In some cases routine abuse by Muslums is from arab culture, not islam. Somecases – it is part of the religion. So how does one unmix sexual abuse of children when that faith version of Jesus supports and practices it?
Such a big problem for who? Don’t forget that the speech was an exercise in diplomacy, which means paying attention to what the other guy thinks is important. In this case, Obama did so by trumpeting America’s values regarding liberty. Your writing has encouraged me to think about liberty, and I’m surprised you wouldn’t be happy about Obama’s words, in this case.
The issue that Bob-1 and Jim seem ignorant of, is that Muslim women are not free to practice their religion. There is no such thing as a religious dictate – because religion is a matter of personal conscience. But these women do receive dictates – from their Imams, husbands and fathers. When Obama refuses to criticize the way Muslim men treat Muslim women, he is simply empowering the abusers and tyrants.
There can be no freedom while coercion exists.
I see no indication that the president supports child abuse or misogyny.
No, of course not. He simply refuses to criticize those who practice it.
Your writing has encouraged me to think about liberty, and I’m surprised you wouldn’t be happy about Obama’s words, in this case.
I’m unhappy because the only “liberty” that he defended was one that is used by men to oppress women.
Kelly, I’m uncomfortable trying to figure out what religious scripture means to other people. I’m not in favor of incest, but I have Christian friends who believe that the bible in the literal word of God, which makes the Adam&Eve and Noah stories troubling (and the part where Ham rapes Noah is particularly unsettling.)
I think you can be a fine person and still believe religious nonsense – some people reconcile their beliefs in beautiful and elaborate expressions of their faith which can be quite inspiring, in my opinion. My own friends who are Muslims wave away the kind of objection you just raised with comments like “please, let be modern and live in today’s world.” In any case, it is none of the government’s business. if abuse occurs, and the state must intervene, religion is irrelevant to the issue.
Rand, many women want to wear what their religion demands, and they are not being abused or oppressed, while the state (in, say, France or Turkey) denies them their freedom. If you want anecdotes off the web, I’m sure anyone can find them.
Rand, many women want to wear what their religion demands, and they are not being abused or oppressed, while the state (in, say, France or Turkey) denies them their freedom.
Since the governments of France and Turkey cannot tell the difference between “consensual” hijabs and “abusive” ones among children I think it’s safe to ban them entirely. They can wear them at home and to Mosque if they want to.
Lastly Bob, France is not a prison. If you don’t like the rules you can always leave for Germany or Belgium with hardly a significant change of lifestyle.
Brock, I think you just made two terrible arguments, from a libertarian perspective.
If the government can’t tell whether something is abuse, it should tread lightly!
If people aren’t free in their own hometown, they (and we) should advocate for their freedom, rather than suggest that they move away and let oppression win.
Putting this in less stark terms: You might not be surprised by how often I see left-wingers suggest that all the right-wingers should leave. I see jokes all the time about labeling unpleasant foreign places “Galt’s Gulch” and then wait to see who shows up (ha ha). They are stupid. We need political dissent in this country to be healthy. In particular, we need people who will argue for freedom, rather than arguing for giving up or running away.
If people aren’t free in their own hometown, they (and we) should advocate for their freedom, rather than suggest that they move away and let oppression win.
You continue to confuse the oppressers and the oppressed.
There are some cultural practices that are simply incompatible with each other (e.g., the desire of the Israelis to live, and the desire of the Arabs to kill Israelis). In those cases, there is no option except to separate them.
If the government can’t tell whether something is abuse, it should tread lightly!
You completely misunderstand. We know that many Muslim women are abused. This is a stark, unquestionable fact. My point is that (since religious choice is a matter of conscience) we ban the wordly practice when we cannot tell the difference between those children who choose to wear the hijab and those who are forced to.
If people aren’t free in their own hometown, they (and we) should advocate for their freedom, rather than suggest that they move away and let oppression win.
Are you free to walk down the streets of New York naked, or do you have to go to a nudist colony for that?
It people can move away, oppression cannot win. Ultimately a local people have to decide for themselves which laws and freedoms they will avail themselves. That’s their choice; their freedom. As long as you are free to associate with them or not, you are free. If everyone in my town passed a zoning ordnance I disagreed with I could lobby against that, but ultimately I might have to vote with my feet. Their freedom (that matches mine) to choose the laws that govern them may result in laws I do not like.
Bob-1 I suggest you stop making arguments “from the libertarian perspective.” I’m pretty sure you “don’t get it.”
You haven’t shown me why I don’t get it. Take gun ownership. In the USA, does your right to own a gun derive from the 2nd amendment, or from your natural rights? Either way, if gun ownership was made illegal (by constitutional amendment or by an “activist” supreme court), you might indeed leave, but you might stay and lobby for your rights. Instead of guns, we are talking about costumes, which should be much less controversial. In the USA, does your right to wear whatever you want derive from the 1st amendment, or your natural rights? Either way, you’d want to defend your rights. And yes, I think anyone who supports gun ownership should support the right to walk around as God made you, completely starkers. Unlike guns, it endangers no one.
(And in NY, you can indeed walk around topless regardless of gender, so NY is already hafway there. Hardly any women actually take advantage of that freedom, which just shows that you don’t need a law to regulate behavior according to local custom. Although, if you’re a libertarian, you already know that.)
In the USA, does your right to own a gun derive from the 2nd amendment, or from your natural rights?
Yes.
Instead of guns, we are talking about costumes, which should be much less controversial.
No, we’re not talking about “costumes.” That’s what you don’t get. We are talking about instruments of oppression. And we don’t (yet) have sharia law here. If Muslims want to immigrate here, or France, or Canada, they need to understand and accept this. If they don’t, they are welcome to not come to a western civilized country, or to leave. Our values are simply not compatible with theirs. I have a feeling that you’re having trouble with the concept of incompatible values in general, and not just this particular incompatibility.
England has lost much of its own cultural identity, and lost ground in its own Enlightenment values, by failing to recognize this incompatibility.
Obama’s remarks were directed at the governments of countries like France and Turkey which forbid girls in public schools from wearing what their religion dictates. I’m surprised a libertarian would object.
Really? You mean 2 days earlier, Obama tells the BBC:
The danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture
And then he goes to Cairo, makes a speech that was intended to impose US values on France and Turkey. I think Bob is having a hard time staying up with Obama’s diplomacy.
It is funny that you picked zoning, because Rand recently pointed out that property rights was one particular area in which the US Constitution is flawed, at least, from a libertarian perspective. As I’ve mentioned here before, I”m in a low energy argument (which might heat up at election time) with my town council over property right issues. I make public speeches at council meetings, but they’ve got the votes… …for now!
This thread is very surprising. How is it that I’m more against government interference than a bunch of libertarians? What’s worse, you’re favoring the kind of separatist bigotry that fascism feeds on.
Leland, “to advocate”, “to scold”, “to lobby” — these verbs are different than “to impose”.
How is it that I’m more against government interference than a bunch of libertarians?
Because of your failure to understand different kinds of “government interference.”
What’s worse, you’re favoring the kind of separatist bigotry that fascism feeds on.
Again, if I’m a “separatist bigot” for sensibly recognizing that the values of the Enlightenment are incompatible with an intolerant, murderous, misogynist ideology, then make the most of it.
How is it that I’m more against government interference than a bunch of libertarians?
There are two kinds of oppression: criminal (citizen to citizen) and tyrannical (government to citizen). Limited tyranny is necessary to prevent criminality. Put another way, government restrains the “freedom” of criminals to rob me. Similarly, I am fine with the French government restraining the “freedom” or Muslims to oppress and enslave their wives and daughters.
What’s worse, you’re favoring the kind of separatist bigotry that fascism feeds on.
Intolerance towards anti-free cultural practices is no sin. I stand for freedom and am proudly “bigoted” against anyone who does not. If someone can’t live by those rules (the rules of the Enlightenment, as Rand points out), I’ll take separation as the next best thing.
I am fine with the French government restraining the “freedom” or Muslims to oppress and enslave their wives and daughters.
Me too. But that’s not what they are doing.
Ok, let talk about the chador (or the burqa) First off, I’m ignorant – it wouldn’t surprise me if I referred to it or how it is worn incorrectly. Second, I think it is stupid, but as I explained above, I think a kippah (Jewish male head covering) is stupid, and I think religion is stupid. Third, I’m male. But that said:
Women in today’s West are fighting for equality, and there are conflicting ideas on how to do that. Some women who wear a chador say that it is liberating to not have men checking out their bodies as they try go about their day. You can find anecotes of women who come from non-observant families (or observant families in which the chador isn’t part of their tradtion) in which the women say that as young women, they chose to wear a chador against the wishes of their family, and they found it liberating. I believe that no state should regulate such a choice. Note that the chador, which does not cover the face, was banned in French schools.
Two other points:
I also think people should be free to cover their face — in addition to any feminist arguments, a person’s face is their own, and I don’t believe covering it hurts anyone else (see above comments about technology and law enforcement).
I also think talking about Islam with such a broad brush is foolish and bigoted. (Even in my ignorance, I know that most Muslim women do not wear the chador or the burqa.) Mysogeny and child abuse are worldwide problems and they should be fought against, hard, everywhere, but that fight should not lead to or enable the kind of separatist hateful religious bigotry that fed fascism before and could always do so again. When we’re just talking about clothing, and I hear “our values are simply not compatible with theirs”, I hear echos of the crap the Nazis used to spew.
When we’re just talking about clothing, and I hear “our values are simply not compatible with theirs”, I hear echos of the crap the Nazis used to spew.
We are not “just talking about clothing.” I know that you want to just “talk about clothing,” but that’s not what we’re talking about. And for what it’s worth, the Nazis’ values are not compatible with ours, either. Or do you think that they are?
The issue that Bob-1 and Jim seem ignorant of, is that Muslim women are not free to practice their religion.
This is a broad brush generalization. The situations are different in different countries, and in different families and communities within those countries.
I’m all for supporting the rights of women to choose their own religious practice, regardless of the views of the state or established church. I don’t think that having Americans tell Muslim leaders how they should treat women is likely to help.
The president picked out clothing because it was a good example of where we can be religiously tolerant and still be true to our own values. Misogny would not be a good example (although most of us tolerate some forms of it), and child abuse would not be an example at all.
I think Germany is wrong to ban displays of the Nazi flag, and I think France is wrong to ban the chador in public schools. Both countries can learn from the USA when it comes to freedom of expression.
Oh come now Bob, the US is not imposing any values on Saudi Arabia or Egypt. You’re being obtuse as to how Obama was using the word.
Leland,
Here’s the more complete context:
Justin Webb: You’re making this speech in Cairo. Amnesty International says there are thousands of political prisoners in Egypt. How do you address that issue?
President Obama: “Right. Well, look – obviously, in the Middle East, across a wide range of types of governments, there are some human rights issues. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that. The message I hope to deliver is that democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion – those are not simply principles of the west to be hoisted on these countries, but, rather what I believe to be universal principles that they can embrace and affirm as part of their national identity. The danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture.
And I think the thing that we can do, most importantly, is serve as a good role model. And that’s why, for example, closing Guantanamo, from my perspective, as difficult as it is, is important.
Because part of what we want to affirm to the world is that these are values that are important, even when it’s hard. Maybe especially when it’s hard. And not just when it’s easy.”
I cut myself off. I think Obama may have meant “foisted”, rather than “hoisted”, but both are forceful, as is the verb “to impose”. I think the context is the war in Iraq, but I could understand if you have a different opinion. I don’t see any contradiction with anything I’m saying about France or Germany however — freedom of speech and freedom of religion are already France and Germany’s values, and they could do better to honor them by not banning pieces of cloth like chadors (in public school) and Nazi flags (everywhere).
Bob,
I’m trying to understand why Obama – the President of the United States of America – is talking to Muslims about French and Turkish policy. I thought “American arrogance” was a thing of the past. Is he running out of American “faults” to fuel an apology-based foreign policy?
Here’s a thought. An adult – someone who is responsible for his own actions – apologizes for himself. He doesn’t whine out apologies because he doesn’t approve of the actions of his political opponents and now (apparently) other country’s policies. A person who does that is a hypocrite.
In any case, there is reasonable cause to believe that Islam as practiced by many does not recognize women as equals. So it’s appropriate to wonder – when Obama publicly agonizes over a policy that attempts to set a woman’s equality over Islamic law and custom – which of the two is more important to Obama?
Joe, Are you familiar with Obama’s Cairo speech? The president’s speech just doesn’t match up with what you’re asking about.
Lots of religions don’t treat women equally (eg Catholicism, Orthdox Judaism, Church of LDS, etc) As long as women are free to accept or reject any religion, there is not a problem. Lots of men abuse women and children. All of them should be stopped (and probably flogged) but their religion isn’t the issue, and certainly their religion isn’t the concern of the state, any state.
There is nothing wrong with Americans sharing their opinions with other countries on how to be better, by, for example, upholding women’s rights and allowing freedom of expression.
Some links for you:
President Obama’s Cairo speech:
“www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/02/us/politics/200900604_OBAMA_CAIRO.html”
Hillary Clinton’s China speech: “www.nytimes.com/1995/09/06/world/hillary-clinton-in-china-details-abuse-of-women.html”
Bob,
My post matches up to your defense of Obama.
Obama makes this comment: “It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism.”
You note: “Rand, many women want to wear what their religion demands, … , while the state (in, say, France or Turkey) denies them their freedom.” In addition, to which I got a general sense from your comments that somehow you thought Obama was speaking about some general problem western – non-American – countries have with Islam. I.e. by disallowing the wearing of religious symbols in schools.
Isn’t that the kind of, well, arrogant? If you believe that Obama is speaking to French and Turkish deficiencies, do you think it especially honest and introspective of him when looks deep inside himself and apologizes-for/agonizes-over a belief he doesn’t share? That his country doesn’t implement?
But leaving aside whether or not Obama was addressing himself to the faults of France. This is off-topic to the main point of the post.
It is quite simply tough shit if Muslims don’t like the dress codes of the public schools in the countries to which they immigrate.
Yes, bigoted proto-fascists use state power to say “tough shit” to minorities when the minorities want to do something that won’t infringe on anyone else’s rights. The bigots in power act at the expense of everyone’s liberty. This thread has been very revealing in showing who cares about liberty and who leans toward fascism.
It is quite simply tough shit if Muslims don’t like the dress codes of the public schools in the countries to which they immigrate.
Indeed. As I recall growing up, no one was allowed to wear things on their head in school. No ball caps. No Kippahs. No Veils. No Klobuks. No Burqas.
And this is in the US. I’ve tried to pull up a few school district dress codes, but those that don’t impose uniform dress typically leave specifics to individual schools. Still, most schools in the district I live don’t allow head gear inside the buildings.
I admit, such codes are intolerant. But bigoted? Absolutely not. Fascist? Only in the sense public schools are run by the government, and more specifically the role of the Department of Education. Take out the DeptEd, and it is a bit less Fascist, as decisions at the district level are more local, and thus flexible to the community needs.
Schools, and much of society, require a certain level of intolerance. I find dress codes far more tolerant than the requirement that everyone must pay for a few people who have children to attend school, or that those few children must, for a half a year, be locked up in a facility of the government’s choosing for 6 to 8 hours a day unless their parents can afford to place them in a private or home school.
I’m neither French or Turkish, and feel no need to dictate, impose, scold, advocate, lobby, censor, foist, or hoist my opinions on how they should run their schools. Nor do I think ths US should demand or request schools in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, or Kuwait to allow young boys to wear Kippahs or Baseball caps to school.
Yes, bigoted proto-fascists use state power to say “tough shit” to minorities when the minorities want to do something that won’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.
Oh brother…
Where were the cries of “fascism!” from the left when a moment of silence was deemed unconstitutional in the 80s? Were you able to tell the difference between the US and 1938 Germany when it was found that erecting a nativity on public grounds is a violation of the first amendment? Who were the Bible study clubs in public schools after hours hurting? Perhaps those examples help identify the difference difference between a “proto-“fascist and one that’s fully formed.
The fact is that in this and in other western countries we make active efforts to separate religion from the state. In schools, we create the separation – among other reasons – to ensure an equality of treatment and results for boys and girls. I don’t always agree with the approaches we take (see Title IX). We may go over-board but that’s the way it is for everyone. (In France, for example, you cannot wear a cross in a public school so Islam is not being singled out).
Every religion needs to suck it up. Or, hey, don’t send your kids to public school. If there’s one religion that thinks it’s special and that its interests need to be addressed distinctly from the others, then I’m filled with contempt for a whiner as opposed to sympathy for a victim.
That the President feels Islam needs a special exemption from rules he’s never been concerned about regarding other religions makes it hard to believe he’s presenting a principled position. That he picked the particular example of head coverings on girls given Islam’s frequent institutional mistreatment of women suggests that a) he doesn’t know about the mistreatment, b) he doesn’t care or c) that the rhetorical point was so appealing to him he decided it was OK to ignore the mistreatment for the Greater Good that expressing the point would create.
Choice (a) makes him a moron, choice (b) makes him callous and choice (c) is a lesser blend of moron and callous with an added helping of arrogance.